LGB Alliance to plan helpline with Lottery funding

I think there really needs to be a helpline for people that don't know whether they're gay or not. I thought I wasn't, but because no-one's ever explained how I can find out what my gender identity is, or my partner's, I've got no way of knowing, if we use Stonewall's definitions.

A much cheaper and valuable option would be for Stonewall to set out very clear definitions about what they mean by woman, man and gender identity, so that everyone can at least be on the same page about that. I don't understand why they refuse to do so.

Saying "look who is friends with who" is a massive klaxon demonstrating that you can't produce an argument about what is actually being discussed, so can only point at something else as a distraction.

There are currently Christian students at a blatantly homophobic university in Seattle campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights. Does this mean these students are wrong and to be hated, because they are Christian? (And paying huge sums to a homophobic organisation)?

Here is one collection of screenshots. Brace yourself, you will need a strong stomach, this is not nice or pleasant reading.

terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/

And that is absolute rubbish, all in you imagination, homosexual people are the same as they've always been, they haven't changed and no-one is telling them they must.

Sorry.

As a homosexual person, I'm telling you that yes this is happening and I have been told that I have no right as a homosexual female to say no to a male person who informs me that they are a lesbian as a potential sexual partner, and any problems I have with this being absolute disrespect for my sexuality, for homosexuality in general, with shattering disregard for a woman's right to enjoy sex instead of 'learn to cope' and the conversion therapy of 'you must learn to overcome your genital bias and prejudice' has happened. Including multiple times right here on MN.

This is happening. It is happening now. The evidence can easily be found on recent threads about this right here on the board where multiple screenshot collections demonstrate exactly how horrible and homophobic the pressure is upon gay people to stop being gay and validate TQ+ people's identities. And also how they're excluded from groups, Pride and exposed to threats upto and including corrective rape and death threats if they dare to say 'but I don't want to' or 'that's fine but not for me thanks'.

Stonewall's official account follows Michael Fabricant. In July 2018, Fabricant was accused of being Islamophobic over a subsequently-deleted tweet he shared depicting London mayor Sadiq Khan, who is a Muslim, in a sex act with a pig.
In May 2021, Fabricant was accused by Hope Not Hate of racism, after he tweeted that pro-Palestinian protesters in London were "primitives" that are "trying to bring to London what they do in the Middle East".

And Aimee Challenor (now Knight) In 2018, David Challenor, Knight's father, who had been serving as her election agent, was convicted and jailed for raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl, and for making indecent images of children.[3][4] Knight's recruitment of her father, despite her knowledge of the charges for 22 sexual offences, led to an investigation and Knight's suspension from the Green Party. She later resigned and joined the Liberal Democrats, but was suspended in 2019 over tweets allegedly posted by her partner concerning sexual fantasies around children.[
In March 2021, Knight who had been hired as an administrator by Reddit became a topic of contention on the website over her connection to David Challenor, leading to several sub-communities to protest her employment by the company. This resulted, after the banning of a moderator and sitewide protests, in an official statement by the website's administrators being released; in it, Reddit confirmed that it had not properly vetted Knight before hiring her and that she was no longer employed by the company.[8]

So does that mean Stonewall endorses these two people @10questions10? Is it unprofessional for them to follow two people who have offensive and questionable views?

That’s not true. Many people are telling lesbians that if they would not consider having sex with a male who says he is a woman then they are transphobic.

Having now looked at the image with Caroline Farrow's tweets, the only ones from 2020 are:

23 September 2020: "Yes, gay sex is a sin as is any sex outside heterosexual marriage. Please see this thread from last night as a basic explainer/primer."

and

23 September 2020: "Why are we debating ay marriage when the issue is about what's taught in schools? However many people believe that marriage is an institution that can only be entered into by 1 man & 1 woman."

All the rest are from before 2013. So... are you truly saying '10questions' that people cannot change and develop their understanding and their point of view over 7 years? I mean, how many supposed allies have now been caught saying horrific things about transpeople back 10-15 years ago and they seem to continue to be lauded just the same.

So, why are others not allowed to grow and develop their understanding too. How do we know it isn't because of conversations with people from the LGB Alliance that has allowed more nuanced thinking in Caroline Farrow even though she obviously still takes a view that reflects her religious beliefs.

And please, by all means engage with those two more recent tweets (nearly two years old) on what they are saying without ad hominem attacks on the tweeter.

How tolerant are you to be declaring Caroline Farrow's views that are likely to be held by quite a large number of people with views shaped by their church are not worthy of respect in a democratic society?

Just how do you think you are showing respect for other's views with what has amounted to demonising Caroline Farrow? Just because someone else on the internet put together that collection of tweets just for that purpose.

And you are lecturing people on respect?

TastefulRainbowUnicorn

yes. Although I would be surprised. Any PR person worth their value would not just block people or close down any avenue of discussion on a professional account if that organisations purpose was to convince people and governments to listen to them.

And to engage in feedback, even from people with opposing opinions, to ensure that organisation has considered all views to strengthen their service offer.

I mean, isn’t that what LGB Alliance is there to do?

And to not operate in a silo?

In fact, 10seconds, I consider it even more professional of a charity to not block and to actually follow people who disagree with you because it does show that as an organisation you are prepared to engage in discussions and open to feedback.

Obviously, if any account gets abusive towards you as an organisation or your staff, you have to reconsider that social media relationship.

If a person merely disagrees and states it, why would any professional organisation not keep channels of communication open?

And I also note, most of those tweets in that image you pulled off the internet were from 2011 and 2013. Only one or two from later. And are simply stating an opposing view. Are you that keen that people cannot change to a more nuanced view?

But yeah, PR was not my speciality, strategy and brand communications were.

😄I bet it will turn out the person you are talking to is a PR specialist with a THIRTY year career.

It's amazing how many various subject matter experts we have on this board, on both sides of the discussion. Though I think the "experts" on the TRA side are amazing in rather different ways than the experts on the FWR side.

Sorry, what exactly is your point @10questions10? That the LGB Alliance's Twitter should only follow accounts it agrees with?

This isn't the year 4 playground you know.

Not were. Are.

Yeah ok. I am not a PR person, however I am a marketing person with a career over 20 years, particularly in marketing communications.

And it is a very poor PR move to indulge in your blinkered approach. Particularly an organization that prides itself on being representative of a group and it’s ability to debate and discuss the rights of LGB people at individual and at government level.

It is actually respectful to maintain dialogue with even people you disagree with who are not abusive towards you. It shows that you are open to those conversations.

But yeah, PR was not my speciality, strategy and brand communications were.

So you are pulling images compiled by others to make the ‘gotcha’ statement to make a similar statement and you still don’t understand that mature adults who disagree, including charities, may follow each other for the very purpose of having open discussion about issues where they disagree?

oops. Sorry. Missing a bit.

So you are pulling images compiled by others to make the ‘gotcha’ statement to make a similar statement and you don’t see that this is not the gotcha you think it is?

You still don’t seem to understand that mature adults who disagree, including charities, may follow each other for the very purpose of having open discussion about issues where they disagree?

So you are pulling images compiled by others to make the ‘gotcha’ statement to make a similar statement and you still don’t understand that mature adults who disagree, including charities, may follow each other for the very purpose of having open discussion about issues where they disagree?

And you have now pivoted to it being ok for a person to do it, but not a charity? What is the difference?

Should a charity adhere to such polarised thinking to appease those subscribers wanting to exist in an purity spiral gatekept echo chamber? And mature adults think that is ok and what is considered professional?

Or would mature adults like to read that twitter conversation that might occur between a charity and a person who disagrees with them to form their own opinions?

Well, there’s Nancy Kelley comparing lesbianism to ‘sexual racism’ and Juno Dawson’s comment ‘A lot of gay men are gay men as a consolation prize because they couldn’t be women.’ For a start.

My post was of course for 10 questions not pluvia.

And repetitively posting the same image is still not a convincing argument.

And people can agree on some things and wildly disagree on others and still be following someone that doesn’t share all their views on twitter.

Some people follow each other so they can have open discourse about issues they disagree with even! I know!! Amazing!

Usually mature people who can actually engage in conversation and discuss issues in a nuanced way while showing empathy for the person they are talking to.

I take it that is some images you have pulled by someone else who did it as the same ‘gotcha’? Or did you do this all by yourself?

If you want to live in an echo chamber tightly controlled with a purity spiral never engaging positively with someone over an issue you disagree on, go for it.

You are just continuing to shine the spotlight on just how intolerant some people are, how hypocritical they are in reality and how tribalism works.

Just more lies, I see.

And you know that Twitter allows you to follow anyone you like.

Including people you actually disagree with and campaign against. Many people do.

There are many reasons to follow an account, only one of which is because you passionately agree with everything they say.

So, I repeat. Your tactic is childish.